Search Results
8/7/2025, 7:38:12 AM
>>213456352
>Eventually, many of these books were discarded as inadmissible evidence because they were commercially available art books that anyone can purchase legally.
>Of the titles that were entered as admissible evidence, it was not because they were pornographic but, rather, because the prosecution felt that they might potentially bolster an argument that Jackson “could have” used the books as grooming material and in an attempt to prove some sort of predilection on Jackson’s part for males (since a few of the titles featured artsy photographs of nude males; however, these were generally titles that featured adult erotica of both sexes).
>The “sadomasochism” books were adult books featuring adult subjects ( Madonna’s “Sex,” for example, was a book that he was known to have shopped for in the early 1990s) and because none of these materials fit the legal definition of child pornography.
>This left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing situation of having to build a case on Jackson’s adult legal porn collection, which was-let’s just say-healthy, but not that unusual for a single guy.
>Let’s remember, these people invaded his private quarters, after all. The full list of Jackson’s adult porn that was confiscated in the Neverland raid has been widely available for many years, and consisted of over 1800 images of nude adult women.
>You can find the full list here. But essentially, this left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing position of trying to build a case of child molestation against a man for whom the only “evidence” they had was issues of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse, Barely Legal, and the like ― along with, well, a lot of art books.
>The thing you have to keep in mind is that the prosecution never had one shred of what we might call “smoking gun” evidence ― the kind that usually leads to an easy, “case closed” conviction in cases like this.
>Eventually, many of these books were discarded as inadmissible evidence because they were commercially available art books that anyone can purchase legally.
>Of the titles that were entered as admissible evidence, it was not because they were pornographic but, rather, because the prosecution felt that they might potentially bolster an argument that Jackson “could have” used the books as grooming material and in an attempt to prove some sort of predilection on Jackson’s part for males (since a few of the titles featured artsy photographs of nude males; however, these were generally titles that featured adult erotica of both sexes).
>The “sadomasochism” books were adult books featuring adult subjects ( Madonna’s “Sex,” for example, was a book that he was known to have shopped for in the early 1990s) and because none of these materials fit the legal definition of child pornography.
>This left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing situation of having to build a case on Jackson’s adult legal porn collection, which was-let’s just say-healthy, but not that unusual for a single guy.
>Let’s remember, these people invaded his private quarters, after all. The full list of Jackson’s adult porn that was confiscated in the Neverland raid has been widely available for many years, and consisted of over 1800 images of nude adult women.
>You can find the full list here. But essentially, this left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing position of trying to build a case of child molestation against a man for whom the only “evidence” they had was issues of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse, Barely Legal, and the like ― along with, well, a lot of art books.
>The thing you have to keep in mind is that the prosecution never had one shred of what we might call “smoking gun” evidence ― the kind that usually leads to an easy, “case closed” conviction in cases like this.
Page 1